The Bahais are ignorant of the dogmas of Babism and of its
history and its book. The "Traveller's Narrative," a work of Abbas Effendi, is
a bad romance, composed solely for the purpose of proving that the Bab is
simply a percursor and announcer of Baha Ullah. With extreme bias, he
misconceives in every instance the true history, and the author has not even
searched, as I have, in the immense works of the Bab for the autobiographical
notes which are so plentiful. He is satisfied with the legends which fall in
best with the end he is pursuing. It is regrettable that a man like Abbas
Effendi should show himself ignorant of the life of the Bab.-- "Beyan Persan,"
A. L. M. Nicolas, Vol. I, p. xvi.

To represent him (the Bab) as simply the forerunner of Baha is an historic
falsehood. It is another to pretend that the religion of the Bab was
universalized by Baha Ullah.--Ibid., Vol. III, p. v.

The Bab did not consider himself as the herald or forerunner of another
dispensation, as a John the Baptist to Christ. This is devoid of historic
foundation. In his own eyes as in those of his followers, M. Ali Mohammed
inaugurated a new prophetic cycle and brought a new revelation which abrogated
the Koran. He declared that he is not the last Manifestation. There would be a
greater, whom he calls "Him whom God would manifest," but the Bab expected that
the next manifestation would be separated from his own by an interval such as
had separated previous dispensations. Possibly the "Bayan" indicates 1511 or
2001 years as the interval.--Professor Browne, "Introduction to Mirza Jani's
History."

[page 179]

VIIIITS RECORD AS TO MORALS

THE moral conduct of the founders of a religion, especially one that requires
trust in the person of its author, is a necessary subject of investigation. The
conduct of the immediate followers is not to the same degree a subject of
criticism. From one point of view it is no argument against the truth of
Bahaism that Bahais fail to live up to its precepts and principles, for this
can be said of all religions. But the claims of Bahai writers make it necessary
to consider their conduct. They boast of superior exemplary character and make
this a proof of Bahaism. Hence it is necessary to show the groundlessness of
their assertions. In the following review, which covers several chapters, the
conduct of Baha, Abdul Baha and their early followers is treated together. The
claim made for the founders is nothing short of blessed perfection. For the
disciples, it is one of superlative excellence. Myron Phelps says: [1]
"This faith does not expend itself on beautiful and unfruitful theories, but
has a vital and effective power to mould life towards the very highest ideals
of human character--as

1. Life of Abbas Effendi," p. xxxvii.

[page 180]

exemplified in the life of Abbas and the salient characteristics of his
followers." The Bahai historians say: [1] "They are remarkable only for
their charity, kindliness, purity, godliness, rectitude, sincerity, integrity,
generosity, chastity and strict avoidance of all forbidden things." "In their
conduct, action, morality and demeanour was no place for objection. . . .
People have confidence in their trustworthiness, faithfulness and godliness."
Abul Fazl [2] speaks of the supernatural character and morals of the
followers of Baha, who became universally celebrated for their just characters,
good conduct and excellent morals. So Remey: "The effect of this cause upon the
lives of the peoples of every race and religion leaves no doubt as to the
divine source of its teachings." Mirza Jani, speaking of the proofs the Babis
gave to the Moslems, says '"We say, 'We have witnessed miracles on the part of
this man. They retort, 'He is a sorcerer. We say, 'Come, let us invoke God's
curse on whomsoever is in error, leaving to Him the decision.' They reply,
'This is not permitted by our law. We say, 'Let us kindle a fire and enter into
the midst together. They answer, 'You are mad. We further say, ' Consider the
godliness, piety and self-renunciation of those who believe. They return us no
answer." I propose to return the answer.

[page 181]dishonesty in dealing with their history. This sometimes takes the form
of the suppression and concealment of documents, sometimes of the omission or
perversion of essential facts or their presentation in such a way as to falsify
history. In the writing of political history and in scheming for the triumph of
a political party, we may expect crookedness in dealing with facts, but in the
propagating of a new religion designed to supersede Christianity and Islam, and
purporting to be an improvement on them, we do not expect to find dishonesty
and misrepresentation. Yet this is exactly what we find, namely, "a readiness
to ignore or suppress facts, writings or views (undoubtedly historical), which
they regard as useless or hurtful to their aims." [1]

When Mirza Husain Ali (Baha Ullah) started out as a "Manifestation," it was
necessary to get rid of certain facts and beliefs held by Babis. He must reduce
the Bab from his position as the Point of Divinity--the Lord of a new
Dispensation, as well as supplant and supersede the Bab's successor,
Subh-iAzal. [2] Thoroughly to accomplish this object (after the Babis
leaders had been put out of the way), the history was rewritten. While claiming
that the Bab gave testimony to Baha and taking to themselves the glory of Babi
heroism and martyrdoms, the Bahais relegated the "Bayan" and other "
revelations" of the Bab, not yet a score of years old, to dust-covered
oblivion. [3] Subh-i-Azal avers that they

wilfully destroyed them. He writes [1] that thirty or more bound books
of the Bab were given in trust by him to his relatives (Baha and his family) as
trustees. "They carried off the trust," and "making strenuous efforts, got into
their hands such of the books of the Point as were obtainable, with the idea of
destroying them and rendering their own works attractive. Professor Browne
[2] informs us that it was very difficult to obtain a Babi book from
Persian Bahais and next to impossible to get a glimpse of one at Acca, where
the Bahais had them concealed. The "holy, divine books" were shelved from
motives of policy.

A primitive Babi work of first importance was the "History," by Mirza Jani.
This was an original narrative of events, at first hand, prepared in sincerity
by one who shortly suffered martyrdom for the cause (1852). But its facts did
not suit the Bahais. So it was superseded, first by the "New History"
[3] (1880), and secondly by the "Traveller's Narrative" (1886). Both
these histories purport to be written by European travellers. We might excuse
their being anonymous, to avoid possible persecution, but to make pretense that
the authors are travellers who have come from afar ostensibly to investigate,
and

1. Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 342--343.2. Browne's "A Year Among the Persians," p. 530. "If, instead of talking in
this violent and unreasonable manner, you would produce the 'Bayan, of which
ever since I came to Persia I have been vainly endeavouring to obtain a
copy."3. Its authors were Mirza Husain of Hamadan, M. Abul FazI, and
Manakji.

[page 183]

into whose mouths are put praises of the religion, is but part of the
insincerity noticeable in other things. [1] Mirza Jani's "History"
passed out of sight, and it was only because a copy had been deposited by Count
Gobineau in the Bibliothque Nationale at Paris that it has reached our hands.
[2]

Of the "New History" little need be said, except that it perverted the history
and "carefully omitted every fact, doctrine and expression," [3] not in
accord with the policy of Baha.

Let us examine somewhat in detail how Abbas Abdul Baha treats facts in his
"Traveller's Narrative." He is undoubtedly the principal author of this work.
[4] The Persian Bahai, who sent Professor Browne the lithographed
(Bombay) copy of it, wrote, "It contains the observations of His Holiness, the
Lord, Mystery of God (May my personality be his sacrifice)." Professor Browne
was also presented with a copy of it at Acca, which he published in Persian
with an English translation. Of it he says, [5] "It was written to
discredit the perfectiy legitimate claims and to disparage the blameless
character of his less successful rival" (Azal). "There is good ground for

1. Numerous magazine articles, and even the "Life of Abbas Effendi" have
been written by Bahais, as if they were outsiders making observations.2. In his Introduction (pp. xxxii.--v.) to Mirra Jani, which he has had
printed in Persian, Professor Browne says, "But for Count Gobineau it would
have perished utterly. This fact is very instructive, that so important a work
could be successfully suppressed," and "that the adherents of a religion could
connive at such an act of suppression and falsification of evidence." "This
fact is established by the clearest evidence."3. "New Hist.," p. xxix. 4. Ibid, pp. xiv., xxxi. 5. Ibid., p. xiv.

[page 184]

suspecting a deliberate misstatement [1] of facts and dates." He
specifies [2] various points in which Abbas Effendi perverted the facts.
Undoubtedly one of the aims of Abbas was to eliminate Azal. The latter had been
regularly appointed by the Bab as his successor, [3] but he refused to
make way for Baha. The Bahais tried to get rid of the question by suppressing
all mention of him, even of his name, and "of all documents tending to prove
the position which he undoubtedly held." [4] They would have consigned
him to oblivion. [5] The "New History" makes but one doubtful reference
to Azal. [6] Professor Browne says, "Abbas Effendi, [7] in order
to curtail the duraation

1. Encyc. Brit.," article, Babism.2. "Trav.'s Narr.," p. xlv. It (1) belittles the Bab and glorifies Baha --
making the former simply a forerunner; (2) belittles the sufferings and deeds
of Babis, passing over remarkable events almost unnoticed and rnagnifies
inferior deeds of Bahais; (3) debases Azal, disregards his position as
successor, disparages and scorns him as lacking in courage and wisdom; (4)
tries to curry the favour of the Shah of Persia and excuses his persecutions,
putting the blame on Mullahs and Viziers, deprecating the resistance and wars
of the early Babis.3. Count Gobineau (p. 277) says, "There was some little hesitation about the
successor of the Bab, but finally he was recognized as divinely designated, a
young man of sixteen, named M. Yahya (Azal). The election was recognized by all
the Babis."4. "Mirza Jani," p. xxxii.5. Ibid., p. xxxv. Professor Browne says, "When I was in Persia in
1887--1888, the Babis (Bahais) whom I met feigned complete
ignorance of the very name and existence of Subh-i-Azal."6. Page 64, note.7. "Abbas Effendi suppressed all incidents and
expressions not in accordance with later Bahai sentiment." "Of this I am
certain that the more the Bahai doctrine spreads, especially outside of Persia,
the more the true history is obscured and distorted" (Professor Browne in his
introduction to "Mirza Jani," p. xxxvi.).

[page 185]

and extent of Subh-i-Azal's authority and to give colour to their assertion
that it was but temporary and nominal, deliberately and purposely antedated
the Manifestation of Baha." And he continues to the present to misrepresent
the facts. In "Answered Questions" [1] Baha is presented as the chief
influence in Persia immediately after the Bab. Other Bahai writers repeat this
error. [2]

2. Another practice of the founders of Bahaism is falsifying and changing
the documents and texts of their Sacred Writings, namely, those of the Bab
and Baha, according to the exigency of circumstances. Subh-i-Azal made the
accusation "that the Bahais had tampered with the Bab's writings to give colour
to their own doctrines and views." [3] I pass this by, to notice how
they have tampered with their own

1. Pages 36--38.2. One need not be surprised at this falsifying of claims and historical
facts, for it is the testimony of the Bahai historian himself (" New Hist.," p.
5) that " the principal vice of the Persians is falsehood--so universal and
customary and so familiar that truthfulness is entirely abandoned and ignored."
"In matters relating to religion the Mullahs have shown themselves to be ready
liars and shameless forgers." The degree of reliability of this History may be
judged from the following sentence, "When the people of Italy had proved the
extent of the Pope's hypocrisy, guile and deceit, they so effectually deposed
him and his children and his grandchildren that naught remained of him but the
appearance "(referring to 1870--1871). I have received a pamphlet by A. J.
Stenstrand, of Chicago, called " Third call to Behaists." He writes (p. 27),
"The Babi history as well as their sacred scriptures prove that a terrible
corruption, changing and transposing of its meanings, has been going on in the
hands of the Behaists." Again (p. 28), "We have plenty of proofs that there has
been continual corruption, interpolation, changing, transposing and stealing
away the sacred scriptures of the Babi religion in the hands of the
Bahais."3. cf. Jour. Roy. As. Soc., 1892, p. 447.

[page 186]

"Revelations." For example, take Baha's "Epistle to the Shah of Persia." Its
original text was published by Baron Rosen. [1] It is embodied by Abbas
Eflendi in the "Traveller's Narrative." [2] The two do not agree. "Very
considerable alterations and suppressions were made in the text by the author
of 'Traveller's Narrative." [3] "The text has evidently been toned down
to suit a wider audience and to avoid giving offense to non-believers."
[4]

There is also another "Epistle to the Shah" which is contained in the
"Surat-ul-Maluk." Its tone is strikingly different. The first is a careful
diplomatic document which acknowledges the faults of the Babis, pleads pardon
for the past and for religious toleration. It is monotheistic, representing
Baha as a humble suffering servant, with no pretense to Divinity. The other
"adopts a tone of fierce recrimination towards the Shah, and upbraids him for
the Bab's death, saying, 'Would you had slain him as men slay one another, but
ye slew him in such a way as the eyes of men have not seen the like thereof and
heaven wept over him, and by God, the eye of existence hath not beheld the like
of you; you slay the son of your prophet and then are of those who are joyful.
" He excuses the attempt on the life of the Shah, and threatens vengeance
[5] on him. These

two Epistles to the Shah have been a puzzle to the critics. This threatening,
fierce letter seems so contrary to the policy of Baha. An adequate and not
improbable explanation [1] would be that one letter was prepared for the
perusal of his Majesty and the other for the Bahais, to impress them with the
boldness of their prophet.

Another example of this is seen in the suppression of part of the
"Lawh-i-Basharat" ("Glad Tidings"). Its fifteenth section commands
Constitutional Government. When the Tablet was sent to Russia, this section was
suppressed by Bahais. The Tablet was published in its mutilated form by Baron
Rosen. Expediency, which rules Bahai practice, required that an incomplete
"Divine Revelation" should reach Russia.

Playing fast and loose with the "Revelations" prevailed still more at the time
of the bitter quarrel and schism on the death of Baha. Though Baha's Tablets
are regarded as "Holy Books" in the highest sense, yet the Bahais commit the
grave offense of changing them so as to misrepresent facts. Mirza Mohammed Ali
and Badi Ullah, younger sons of Baha, in refuting the claim of Abbas Effendi to
be

1. The same explanation will account for the opposite narratives of the
trial of Baha before the Turkish court at Acca. Mr. Laurence Oliphant reports
that the court put the question to Baha, "Will you tell the court who and what
you are?" "I will begin," he replied, "by telling you who I am not. I am not a
camel-driver (alluding to Mohammed), nor am I a carpenter."2. New Hist.," p. xxv.

[page 188]

Baha's successor, say, "Has Abbas dared to change the texts uttered by Baha
Ullah? Most certainly, Yes. We have in our possession many texts of Baha Ullah
which have been changed [1] by Abbas Effendi." Further, "he and his
party have stolen the first paragraph of a sacred Tablet and have perverted its
meaning, with deception."

Khadim-Ullah, [2] the lifelong amanuensis of Baha, asserts that Abbas
actually rejected a " Sacred Tablet," written in the handwriting of Baha Ullah.
Other Tablets are repudiated. For in "Hidden Words" [3]Baha Ullah refers
to the "Fifth Tablet of Paradise" and the "Ruby Tablet." Abbas Effendi warns
against accepting any such Tablets if they should be brought to light. What
other reason for this can we imagine than fear that their contents

1. "Facts for Behaists" p. 27. We mention a few of the important ones. (1)
The so-called Tablet of Beirut, which confirmed the claim of Abbas, and was
said to be transcribed by Khadim Ullah. The latter declared it to be a forgery
by Abbas Effendi. (2) Abbas omitted the middIe part of the "Tablet of command"
to make it certify his claims. A complete copy in Baha's own handwriting showed
the subterfuge. (3) He combined parts of two different Tablets, called it the
"Treasure Tablet," and claimed that it certified his succession. The two
Tablets were produced and proved the falsity of the claim.2. "Facts for Behaists," p. 55. Afterwards Badi Ullah, who had accused the
party of Abbas of making additions to the writings, with a purpose changed
sides in the quarrel and accused Mohammed Ali of the same things--
"interpolating," "erasing," "transposing," " replacing," "clipping and joining
fragments," of the Tablets of Baha Ullah, besides issuing "a false writing in
his name" Mohammed Ali is also accused of " carrying away by way of the window"
two trunks full of the "blessed writings." See "Epistle to the Bahai World," by
Mirza Badi Ullah, pp. 3,5, 12--17.3. "Hidden Words," numbers 20, 37, 48.

[page 189]

would be against his claim. Enough has been said to show the truth of the
charge that the Bahais deal dishonestly with the documents of their alleged
revelation.

A peculiar instance of forgery occurs in the writings of Baha Ullah. In his
Epistle to the Shah Baha quotes certain verses as from the "Hidden Book of
Fatima." This book, the Shiahs believe, was revealed by Gabriel to Fatima, the
daughter of Mohammed, disappeared with the twelfth Imam, and will be brought
back by the Mahdi at his coming. Professor Browne [1] wrote to Acca
making inquiry about this "Book of Fatima" and the quotations from it. The
authoritative reply which he received was, "That naught is known of such a book
but the name, but Baha Ullah mentioned it in this manner to make known the
appearance of the Kaim" (Mahdi). In other words, Baha was making a false
pretense of quoting from the "Book of Fatima," as if he, as Mahdi, had brought
it with him.

3. Bahais make false representation of facts in political history. The
"Traveller's Narrative" perverts the truth for "political opportunism."
[2] Contrary to the contemporary historian, Mirza Jani, and the European
chroniclers, the Shah is represented as ignorant and innocent of and averse to
the repressive measures taken by his government against the Babis. Let me give
specific proofs of this.

At the first trial of the Bab, at Tabriz, according to Mirza Jani, [3]
Nasr-ud-Din, then Crown Prince, whom

1. "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 523. 2. "New Hist.," p. vii.3. Ibid., p. 353.

[page 190]

he dubs "bastard," treated the Bab disrespectfully by rolling a globe towards
him and taunting him with ignorance of it and by ordering him to be
bastinadoed. The "Traveller's Narrative," [1] per contra, says, "The
heavenly-cradled Crown Prince pronounced no sentence with regard to the Bab,
but the Mullahs ordered a bastinado." The former history states that the Prime
Minister consulted, about the execution of the Bab, with the Shah, [2]
who gave him full authority to act in the matter," and that he then
communicated with Prince Hamza Mirza, Governor of Azerbaijan, who proceeded to
make plans for it. Abbas Narrative [3] states that "the Minister,
without the Royal command and without his cognizance and entirely on his own
authority, issued commands to put the Bab to death"; "that Prince Hamza utterly
refused to have part in the trial and execution." Gobineau [4] confirms
the original account, and states that Prince Hamza "took a leading part in the
condemnation of the Bab." It is certain that contemporary Babis [5] held
the Shah responsible for their persecution and were bitter against him. Mirza
Jani records the death of Mohammed

1. "Trav's Narr.," p. 20.2. "New Hist.," p. 292.3. "Trav.'s Narr.," pp. 40, 41. Ahul Fazl also is apologetic for the Shah,
and says ("Bahai Proofs," p. 38), "Without seeking permission from the Shah,
the Minister issued the order for his death."4. "Trav.'s Narr.," p. 259.5. In "New Hist.," p. xvii., Professor Browne says, "The Babis made no
profession of loyalty, nor did they attempt to exonerate the Shah from the
responsibility of the persecutions. To the Shahs, such terms as tyrant,
scoundrel, unrightful king, are freely applied. The battle cry, 'Ya Nasrud-Din
Shah, is described as 'a foul watchword.'"

[page 191]

Shah, by saying that "he went to hell"; the "New History" affirms "that he
passed to the mansions of Paradise." Nasr-ud-Din was no puppet king, he was
fully cognizant of the affairs of state. Regarding the imprisonment of Baha,
the "Traveller's Narrative" [1] says, "His Majesty, moved by his own
kindly spirit, ordered investigation and the release of Baha Ullah." He had
just ordered the execution of twenty-eight Babis, with horrid cruelties, after
the attempt on his life. Regarding the torture and execution of Badi, who bore
the Epistle to the Shah, it says: [2] "It was contrary to the desire of
the Shah, and he manifested regret for it." This and much in that Epistle is
written with the idea of conciliating the Shah and obtaining toleration. It is
a sensible attitude, did they not maintain it with so much misrepresentation
and hypocrisy. The real spirit of Bahais towards Nasr-ud-Din is seen in Baha's
"Surat-ul-Maluk," and is one of "fierce recriminatinn." Confirmation of this
comes from conversations with Bahais.

Another misrepresentation of history, which is universal among Bahais, is in
belittling the plot to assassinate Nasr-ud-Din Shah in 1852. Abbas Effendi
says, [3] "It was done by a certain Babi, by sheer madness, one other
person being his accomplice." His sister, Bahiah Khanum, says, [4] It
was "by a young Babi who had lost his reason." Kheiralla, [5] says, It
was "by a weak-minded, insane

believer." Similarly all their writers propagate a tradition that one
irresponsible man made the attempt. It is permitted to doubt the Shiah
historian, who gives a circumstantial account of how twelve Babis, including
one high leader, laid the plot. But Count Gobineau [1] is entitled to
credence when he says that there were a number of Babis in the plot and three
took part in the attempt. A nephew of one of the accomplices told Professor
Browne [2] that there were seven in the plot and three of them went out
to commit the act. Why will not Bahai writers give the facts straight?

Another misrepresentation fostered by them is that of calling the Babi martyrs
Bahais. Thus Abdul Baha says, [3] "When they brought Kurrat-ul-Ayn the
terrible news of the martyrdom of the Bahais, she did not waver." Again he
says, [4] "Thousands of His (i. e., Baha Ullah's) followers have given
their lives, and while under the sword shedding their blood they have
proclaimed, 'Ya Baha-ul-Abha. " He said [5] in Doctor Cadman's church,
"The King of Persia killed 20,000 Bahais." Again, [6] "In all parts of
Persia his enemies rose against Baha Ullah, imprisoning and killing his
converts, razing thousands of dwellings." These are gross misstatements. In
Kurrat-ul-Ayn's time there were no Bahais, only Babis. No such efforts as those
described were ever made to crush Bahaism. The thousands who gave

their lives were Babis. Perhaps some one remarks, "What's the difference?"
Foreign writers may not know the difference, and an American audience certainly
does not. But Abdul Baha, from whom I have quoted, makes a great difference. It
arouses one's indignation to read Bahai literature, in which they claim credit
for all that is noble in Babi annals, such as the martyrdoms, and yet they
disparage and deny the Babis.

Read Abul Fazi's "Bahai Proofs." He said [1] to Prince Naibus-Sultaneh,
"The unseemly actions of the Babis cannot be denied nor excused, but to arrest
Bahais for them is oppression, for these unfortunates have no connection with
the Babis, who took up arms, nor are they of the same religion or creed." In
another place he writes [2] repudiating the wars and disorders of the
Babis, and affirming that they were guilty of many censurable actions, 'such as
taking men's property and pillaging the dead, and engaging in conflict and
bloodshed. If then the Bahais repudiate them, they must not appropriate their
glory, for the old Babis, with all their faults, were at least heroic. Bahaism
has, on the contrary, the spirit of tagiya.

I pass on to consider Abdul Baha's representations regarding Sultan Abdul
Hamid. I present two quotations from Tablets addressed to American believers.
The first says, [3] "Here one witnesses the fairness and impartiality of
H. I. Majesty the Padishah of the

1. Pages 77, 78.2. Page 63.3. "Tablets of Abdul Baha," Vol. I, p. 46.

[page 194]

Ottomans, who has dealt with the utmost justice and equity. In reality to-day,
in the Asiatic world, the Padishah of the Ottoman Empire and the Shah of
Persia, Muzaffar-ud-Din, are peerless and have no equals. These two kings have
treated us with mildness--both are just. Therefore, pray ye and beseech for
their confirmation in the threshold of the Almighty, especially for Abdul
Hamid, who has dealt at all times in justice with these exiled ones." Abdul
Hamid--a peerless, just one! Surely this would have remained among the hidden
things had not one "Servant of God" (Abd-ul-Baha) revealed it to us about that
other "Servant of God" (Abd-ulHamid). This "revelation" is dated 1906. After
Abdul Hamid was deposed, Abdul Baha speaks [1] of "his oppression and
tyranny," for the Sultan sent "an oppressive, august commission, that with all
kinds of wiles, simulations, slander and fabrication of false stories, they
might fasten guilt upon Abdul Baha. But soon fetters and manacles were placed
around the unblessed neck of Abdul Hamid." Did the "Infallible Pen" err in the
former character sketch? No, but Abdul Baha's oppression [2] of his
brothers, in retaining their patrimony, resulted in a bitter quarrel and
complaints, followed by an

1. S.W., May 17, 1951, p. 6.2. Mrs. Templeton (previously Mrs. Laurence Oliphant), in "Facts for
Behaists," tells of the unrighteousness of Abbas Effendi (Abdul Baha) in
keeping from his brothers and stepmothers the pension money of the Turkish
Government and the revenue of Baha's villages, and of his ostentatious charity
in giving away part of these funds by distributing coins to a mixed crowd of
beggars every Friday.

[page 195]

investigating Commission and Abdul Baha's imprisonment. On this account the
whitewash scaled off from Abdul Hamid.

Another form of misstatement is their habitual way of speaking of the
imprisonment of Baha and Abdul Baha. Abdul Baha says of Baha, [1] " His
blessed days ended in the cruel prison and dark dungeon." "He passed his days
in the Most Great Prison." [2] Abdul Baha continually speaks of himself
in such words as the following, "Forty years I was a prisoner; I was young when
I was put in prison, and my hair was white when the prison doors opened."
[3] "After all these long years of prison life." "My body can endure
anything; my body has endured forty years of imprisonment." [4] Now,
what are the facts?

In Phelps Life, Bahiah Khanum [5]says, "We were imprisoned in the
barracks at Acca two years (1868--70)." Then [6] "we were given a
comfortable house [7] with three rooms and a court." After nine years of
such restriction Baha Ullah moved to a beautiful garden outside the city and
built there a Palace, called Bahja. He had the freedom of the surrounding
country, visited Mount Carmel, and later spent a part of each year at Haifa.
[8] Baha Ullah died in this Palace, not in a dungeon.[9]

1. S.W, May 17, 1913, p. 74.2. "Tablets of Abdul Baha," Vol. I, p. 44. 3. S. W., Ibid., p. 67.4. Ibid., Sept. 8, 1912, p. 5. 5. Phelps, p. 66. 6. Ibid., p. 70.7. This house was purchased by an American Bahai lady, that it might remain
in Bahai hands.8. "Bahai Proofs," by Abul FazI, p. 66. Remey, p. 23.9. Mrs. Grundy, p. 73 ff., "Ten Days," etc., speaks of the Palace of Joy as
a very, large white mansion. Professor Browns. was received here (1890). He was
conducted through a spacious hall, paved with a mosaic of marble, into a great
antechamber, and entered through a lifted curtain into a large Audience
Room.

Of the Garden of Baha, Sprague ("A Year in India," etc., p. 1) says, "It is
a veritable garden of Eden, with luxuriant foliage and every fruit. Baha Ullah
used to sit under the large spreading tree and teach his disciples." Mrs.
Grundy says, " The Rizwan is filled with palm trees, oranges, lemons and
wonderful flowers. A river, the Nahr Naaman, runs through it, in two streams,
on which ducks and other fowls swim. On an island is an arbour under two large
mulberry trees. A fountain plays in the midst. Under the arbour is a chair
where Baha used to sit. No one sits in it any more. (Mrs. Grundy knelt at the
foot of the chair.) The garden has a cottage, where Baha spent his summers." A
Palace and a luxurious summer place were Baha's "Most Great Prison" during most
of his years at Acca. Compare Laurence Oliphant's "Haifa," etc., p. 103, for a
fine description of his "pleasure ground." How unfounded are such statements as
Bernard Temple's (S W, p. 39, April 28, 1954). "All this while the founders
were behind prison walls."

[page 196]

As to Abbas Effendi, during the first brief period only he was restricted to
the barracks. He was even temporarily put in chains in the dungeon [1]
when accused of participation in the assassination of the Azalis. After that,
for a period of thirty years, "he was permitted to go about at his pleasure,
beyond the walls of Acca." [2] He built a fine residence [3] at
Haifa, which I have seen. He journeyed to Tiberias and as far as Beirut. Only
after his quarrel with his brothers and on their accusation was he ordered back
to Acca, and even then he had the freedom of the city (1905). [4] Such
are the facts about Abbas

1. Phelps, p. 75. 2. Ibid., p. 80.3. Dr. H. H. Jessup, who visited him in 1900, writes (New York Outlook,
June, 1901), "Abbas Effendi has two houses in Haifa, one for his family, in
which he entertains the American lady pilgrims, and one down town where his
Persian followers meet him."4. Abbas Effendi in Acca at this time visited Mr. Remey ("Bahai Movement,"
p. 108). He received American pilgrims. Mrs. Goodall ("Daily Lessons," p. 6)
speaks of "His bountifully spread table," the laughter and good cheer, and (p.
13) remarks, "One would never realize he was visiting a Turkish prison."

[page 197]

Effendi, whom Canon Wilberforce introduced in his church as "for forty years
a prisoner for the cause of brotherhood and love." In truth it
was the quarrelling of the brothers, Azal and Baha, that led to the banishment
from Adrianople to Acca, the murder of Azalis by Bahais increased its severity,
the bitter hatred of the younger generation against each other brought back the
restraint.

4. Another immoral practice of Bahais is tagiya or ketman,
religious dissimulation. This is taught and practiced by Shiah Moslems,
[1] and it is continued with all its offensiveness against good morals
by Bahais. In it concealment, denial or misrepresentation by word or act is
allowed for self-protection or for the good of the faith. It was formally
permitted by Baha Ullah. In accordance with this practice Abdul Baha and his
followers at Acca keep the Fast of Ramazan [2] in addition to the Bahai
Fast at Noruz. Dr. H. H. Jessup [3] 3wrote, "He is now acting what seems
to be a double part--a Moslem in the Mosque, and a Christ in his own house. He
prays with the Moslems, 'there is no God but God, and expounds the Gospels as
the incarnate Son of God." Mirza Abul Fazl, a Bahai missionary, lately died in
Egypt. At his public funeral [4] the Moslem taziah, with reading
of the Koran, was held, though he was a

1. Doctor Shedd says, " Concealment of religious faith is a common practice
in Persia, and it is approved and recommended by Bahais."2. Phelps, p. 101. 2. New York Outlook. 4. S. W., March 2, 1914.

[page 198]

strenuous worker for the abrogation of Islam. Most Bahais in Persia live in
habitual agiya. Fear of persecution is some palliation for this, but it
is a great defect. Very far from the truth is the statement of Lord Curzon
[1] 'that "No Babi (or Bahai) has ever recanted under pressure." Mr.
Nicolas, [2] the French Consul at Tabriz, shows from the Bab's own
writings that he himself denied his Manifestation at his examination at Shiraz
and signed a recantation. At the execution [3] of the Bab in Tabriz
(1850) two of his intimate disciples denied the faith. The explanation of the
fact is remarkable and instructive. They were enjoined to do so by the Bab in
order that they might convey certain documents to a safe place. In other words,
they were to lie for the faith, by divine injunction. In another notable
instance, [4] seven Babis stood firm and were executed at Teheran, while
thirty recanted, being told by their leader to judge whether they were
justified by family ties, etc., in renouncing the faith. "They determined to
adopt a course of concealment, tagiya." Some years ago a Bahai was
called before the Governor of Tabriz and questioned, "Are you a Bahai?" "I am a
Mussulman." "Will you curse Baha?" "It is written in the Koran not to curse, I
am not a Bahai." By payment of a peshkesk this answer was made acceptable. And
no offense was recognized in

conscience, for Baha had said, "If your heart is right with me, nothing
matters." It were scarcely necessary to note that some Babis and Bahais have
denied their faith, except to correct the mistake of travellers, but the fact
that denial is permitted and approved is important. For tagiya is a
deeply-rooted seed which bears evil fruits in their characters and conduct.
Even their propaganda is carried on in the same deceitful spirit. The Bahai
conceals from the one he approaches his status and beliefs, insinuates himself
into his confidence, suits the substance of his message to the preconceptions
and prejudices of his hearer and leads him on, perhaps omitting to mention the
real essentials of Bahaism. One of their methods is to worm themselves into the
employ of Christian Missions and clandestinely carry on their propaganda while
they undermine the work of the Mission. Perhaps the Mission wishes a language
teacher or a mirza. A Bahai presents himself. He talks well. In the course of
conversation the missionary inquires his religious views. He appears liberal
minded. Direct inquiry is made, "Are you a Bahai?" He replies, "No, I am
not, but I am tired of Islam; I am a truth-seeker." The missionary employs
him. After a time, maybe, he professes to be a Christian, and is baptized. Such
were a

1. S. M. Jordan, of Teheran, says (" The Mohammedan World," Cairo, p.130),
"We are honestly open in our methods, while they are the reverse." Doctor Shedd
says," Christian Mission work is openly Christian, that of Persian Bahais is
professedly Mohammedan." "Bahaism, as offered to a Jew, a Christian or a
Mohammedan, varies greatly."

[page 200]

certain Mirza Hasan and a Mirza Husain, who deceived the Swedish Mission and
received salaries as Christian evangelists, but had been and continued to be
Bahais and propagandists. I have heard that in a certain Station (not American)
Bahais, without revealing their faith, accepted positions as cook,
language-teacher, financial agent, etc., and so surrounded the new Mission that
it was a Bahai more than a Christian establishment. Doctor Shedd [1]
tells of an assistant he had with him in school work--a Persian, with whom he
discussed religious topics freely. For years the man disavowed belief in
Bahaism, but finally threw off the mask and became an active propagandist.
After his dismissal he instigated the Persian pupils, whom he had previously
secretly beguiled, and they complained to the Persian Government that "they, as
good (?) Mohammedans, were offended by having to study the Christian
Scriptures." Great is tagiya!What else can we expect, since Abdul Baha instructs his disciples in
pretense. A certain Madame Canavarro, [2] staying at Acca, expressed her
desire to assist in spreading Bahaism among the Buddhists, and spoke of the
difficulty of introducing it as a new religion. Abdul Baha replied, "At first
teach it as truths of their own religion, afterwards tell them of me." She
replied that she herself was imbued with the spirit of Buddhism. He answered,
"What you call yourself is of no consequence." To a certain American lady who
was afraid her friends would be

1. Missionary Review, October, 1911.2. Phelps, p. 154.

[page 201]

repelled by the idea of a new religion, Abdul Baha advised, "Remain in the
Church and teach Bahaism as the true teaching of Christ."

A striking instance of this religious dissimulation is seen in
Hamadan.[1] There about two-and-a-half per cent of the Jews have
accepted Baha as the Messiah. But many of these continue in the outward forms
and associations of the Jews. [2] Others professed to be Christians, and
were protected as such by the Shah's government. After a decade or two it
became evident that they were hypocrites, cloaking their Bahaism under the
Christian name.

This Oriental dissimulation takes on a different phase in Western Bahaism. The
principle of the latter is stated thus, "Adhere to any religious faith with
which you are associated." [3] "No religious relation [4] should
be severed, but these relations should become as avenues for giving forth the
message of

1. Miss A. Montgomery, in Woman's Work, 1913, p. 270, says of these Bahais,
"This sect of Moslems, thirty years ago, were afraid to appear to be what they
really were, they exercised the privilege of falsehood their deceitful faith
grants them, and called themselves Christians." 2. A European Jew reports as follows (1914), "The Jewish Bahais in Hamadan
are few in number (exactly fifty-nine besides children). They have not yet
broken with Judaism. They go to the Synagogue and follow outwardly our
religious practices. They deny in public that they are
Bahais from fear of the Mussulmans, who detest the new religion. But the
continual attacks of the Bahais against the Jews will exasperate our
co-religionists, who will cast them out finally. At present the practical
result is hatred and disdain, and bitter dissensions between fathers and sons,
sisters and brothers, husband and wife." 3. S Phelps, p. 96. The Report of the Bahais to the United States census
Board says, "One may be a Bahai and still retain active membership in another
religious body." 4. 'Remey's "The Bahai Movement," p. 97.

[page 202]

the Bahai faith." This idea is delusive; it is self-deception, ignorance, or
worse. No Christian can give allegiance to Baha as incarnate God and accept, as
he then must, Islam, [1] Babism and Bahaism as successively true, and as
higher revelations abrogating Christianity, and still be loyal to Christ.
Bahaism is not a philosophy like Tolstoism, nor a theory of economics like the
"single tax"; it is a religion as much as Mormonism is.

A plain example of Bahai tagiya is in connection with the organization
known as the "Persian-American Educational Society." This was organized at
Washington, D. C., under the patronage of Mirza Ali Kuli Khan, Persian Charge
d'Affaires. Its organizing body, committee to draft its constitution, its
executive, are Bahais, yet its circular sets forth seventeen purposes for its
existence without naming the propagation of Bahaism as one of them. It appealed
for funds on general philanthropic and educational grounds, never mentioning
its religious motive. It introduced the names of President Taft, Secretary
Root, and other prominent men in such a way as to lead the public to understand
that the movement had their intelligent endorsement. To its real purpose, viz.:
aiding existing and establishing new Bahai schools in Persia and the Orient,
[2] I

1. Bahaism says, "Christians who do not believe in the Koran have not
believed Christ." 2. The name of the Society has been changed to the "Orient Occident Unity,"
and a commercial department added. Its contributions are acknowledged, and its
work reported through the Star of the West as Bahai work. An American, who
imported a machine flour.mill to Persia, under its auspices, told the Consul
that the object of his coming was not the mill but propagating Bahaism. In the
Jam-i- Jamsied Calcutta, March 28, 1914, Dr. E. C.
Getsinger boasts to the Parsees, "The American Bahais have established schools
in Persia, and have sent American teachers to those schools."

[page 203]

am making no objection. It is the concealment of this purpose which is
objectionable when contributions are asked from the general public. It claims
to be unsectarian, because its schools take in pupils of all sects and
religions. So do the schools of Christian Missions, but they are none the less
Christian schools, and the "Orient-Occident" schools are distinctively Bahai.
They disclaim proselytizing. The claim is simply false. Bahai schools are
hot-beds of proselytizing, and must be so by their nature. Their law [1]
says, "Schools must first train the children in the principles of the
religion." Dreyfus [2] adds, "There is no fear of a prescription,
emanating from such authority, ever being disregarded." The Bahai school in
Teheran worked under cover for some years. Remey says, [3] "This
institution is not generally known as a Bahai School. However, it is in the
hands of the Bahais. From the directors down through the teachers and students,
the majority were of our faith." Similarly in Bombay, [4] the Bahai
teacher concealed his faith. "The Zoroastrian parents of his pupils suspected
him of Bahaism and so took their children out."

we have to go to the fountainhead. Abdul Baha himself, oblivious to its moral
obliquity, lays bare the fact in his "Traveller's Narrative." [1] We
have seen that Subh-i-Azal, the half-brother of Baha Ullah, was appointed by
the Bab as his successor. According to Abdul Baha, this appointment was a
dishonest subterfuge on the part of Baha, arranged by him through secret
correspondence with the Bab, in order that Baha might be relieved of danger and
persecution and be protected from interference. So "out of regard for certain
considerations and as a matter of expediency, Azal's name was made notorious on
the tongues of friends and foes even to jeopardizing his life, while Baha
remained safe and secure, and no one fathomed the matter." Abul Fazl [2]
states the position of the "Traveller's Narrative" as follows, "The Bab and
Baha Ullah after consulting together, made Azal appear as the Bab's successor.
In this manner they preserved Baha Ullah from interference." This account shows
the low ideas of honour and truthfulness in the minds of Baha and Abdul Baha.
And although their explanation is not true (but an invention of their
tagiya--corrupted minds), it shows to what straits [3]
they were put to explain

1. Pages 62, 63, 95 96. 2. "Bahai Proofs," p. 52. See also Browne's "Mirza Jani's History," pp.
xxxiii.--vi..3. The Bahais are impaled on the other born of the dilemma also, for, as
Professor Browne says (" Mirza Jani," p. xxxiii.), "The difficulty lies in the
fact that Subh-i-Azal consistently refused to recognize Baha's claim, so that
the Bahai is driven to make the assumption that the Bab, who is acknowledged to
be divinely inspired and gifted with divine knowledge and prescience,
deliberately chose to succeed him one who was destined to be the 'Point of
darkness, or chief opponent, of 'Him whom God should manifest.'"

[page 205]

away the succession of Azal, the legitimacy of which Azal still, in his ripe
old age, maintains. Abdul Baha published to the world Baha's deceitfulness, but
only made the matter worse for him.

Of a piece with this was the action of Baha's trusted agent, Maskin Kalam, in
Cyprus. This Bahai was sent by the Turkish Government with Azal. "He set up a
coffee-house at the port where travellers must arrive, and when he saw a
Persian land he would invite him in, give him tea or coffee and a pipe, and
gradually worm out of him the business that had brought him there. If his
object were to see Subh-i-Azal, off went Maskin Kalam to the authorities, and
the pilgrim soon found himself packed out of the Island." This account is given
by a faithful Bahai. Afterwards Maskin Kalam retired to Acca and spent his old
age as an honoured guest of Baha.